USCHO Fan Forum
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
-
The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.
Religion Thread: ...and suddenly, everyone's a theology scholar
- Thread starter MissThundercat
- Start date
- Status
Kepler
Si certus es dubita
Re: Religion Thread: ...and suddenly, everyone's a theology scholar
It's a good quote, though I believe the author is conflating private and public perceptions. Privately, many of us understand life is complex, character is always mixed, judgment should be circumspect, and tolerance is a sacred virtue. Publicly, the Mob Mind takes over, flattens all that out, and excretes the lowest common denominator simplification.
Heaven is quiet introspection. Hell is social media.
It's a good quote, though I believe the author is conflating private and public perceptions. Privately, many of us understand life is complex, character is always mixed, judgment should be circumspect, and tolerance is a sacred virtue. Publicly, the Mob Mind takes over, flattens all that out, and excretes the lowest common denominator simplification.
Heaven is quiet introspection. Hell is social media.
Last edited:
Purgatory is message boards?
Kepler
Si certus es dubita
unofan
Well-known member
But you'll do your ****dest to make sure legislation ignores both.
ScoobyDoo
NPC
unofan
Well-known member
So let's force poor unmarried women to give birth to an unwanted child lacking access to a social safety net in a planet that will be ever more inhospitable to human life due to unregulated pollutants so that the rich can get an extra percent or two in profits.
Really protecting the weak there, Joe.
The baby. The choicers ignore the baby who is defenseless.
I keep reading that birth control is the responsibility of the woman (horsebleep). If you want to play hide the salami, then make sure there are no complications.
unofan
Well-known member
A fertilized egg is not a baby any more than an acorn is an oak tree.
But putting that aside, your party's (and the Church's) stance on birth control is indefensible if it's really about protecting babies rather than controlling women's body parts.
Kepler
Si certus es dubita
Re: Religion Thread: ...and suddenly, everyone's a theology scholar
It's not. The dead giveaway was "hide the sausage." It's the perennial misogyny of old religious men. It's the Crucifix Taliban desperately trying to maintain the grasp of their grubby, aged, enfeebled fingers on young c-nt.
<img src="https://static01.nyt.com/images/2015/02/01/world/JUSTICE/JUSTICE-master1050.jpg" height="300" />
It's not. The dead giveaway was "hide the sausage." It's the perennial misogyny of old religious men. It's the Crucifix Taliban desperately trying to maintain the grasp of their grubby, aged, enfeebled fingers on young c-nt.
<img src="https://static01.nyt.com/images/2015/02/01/world/JUSTICE/JUSTICE-master1050.jpg" height="300" />
Last edited:
MissThundercat
Are the cis okay?
So you should pipe down about same sex marriage.
FadeToBlack&Gold
Microlot Marxist
Re: Religion Thread: ...and suddenly, everyone's a theology scholar
Except that Catholics are taught that same-sex marriages violates the sanctity of the sacrament of marriage, thereby doing harm.
Of course, there's the whole issue of divorce and "quickie" marriages to consider in that "sanctity" equation.
But as far as we know, Joe's not a hypocrite, and I'm pretty sure divorce would be illegal in the Dictatorship of Joe-topia. 
Except that Catholics are taught that same-sex marriages violates the sanctity of the sacrament of marriage, thereby doing harm.
Of course, there's the whole issue of divorce and "quickie" marriages to consider in that "sanctity" equation.
But as far as we know, Joe's not a hypocrite, and I'm pretty sure divorce would be illegal in the Dictatorship of Joe-topia. 
leswp1
Well-known member
Re: Religion Thread: ...and suddenly, everyone's a theology scholar
Seems to me the probirthers and the prochoicers just 'ignore the baby who is defenseless' at different times. I hate the thought of abortion. In a perfect world it wouldn't be necessary. However-- I find is reprehensible that people think it is OK to promote the birth and then leave the 'defenseless baby' at the mercy of the world that doesn't provide food, shelter, healthcare, protection or the resources for the baby to succeed in life. Add that to the active movement to remove access to GYN care and birth control and it makes me ill to think anyone claims they are advocating for the baby. NO. YOU. ARE. NOT. You are just fooling yourself. Until the world has changed you are forcing these mothers and babies into an untenable situation. Who is doing more harm? The woman who may make a choice believing the baby would not be provided for or the person who takes the choice away from the woman and then does not provide the things the woman already knows she can't provide. All the while the culture passes judgement saying it is the woman's fault like no peni5 is involved. Because she got pregnant she should suffer the consequences. The baby suffers but no one want to visit that.
Actively advocating for the baby would be working to help provide good healthcare for women including birth control (this has been proven to statistically improve not only the quality of life for the mother but significantly improves multiple outcomes for the baby.) Actively advocating for the baby would be working to improve access to healthy food for the mother and the family. Provide for education. Provide for safe shelter. Provide treatment for mothers who have mental illness or substance use issues. It is possible you do all those things on a small scale but society at large does not.
The 'defenseless baby' is more likely to be provided for by the pro-choicers with their views on a social net than the group that wants to restrict access to BC, Healthcare, abortion, cut funding to schools, WIC and other programs. No high ground here at all.
I have cared for people who have had to make very hard choices. Some chose a termination and others to keep the child. I have tried not to pass judgement- even the best birth control fails. I figure God will sort it out with them. I can say that keeping the baby is not always a successful venture even with multiple sources trying to advocate for the Mum. People think that because they take a choice away the mother will just get on with mothering. Not all Mums bond. The decision can destroy a relationship. Statistically it increases the chance of domestic violence. It can cause the family to who was scraping by to fall into abject poverty no matter how much they try to cut corners.
The next argument is 'Well, they should give the baby up'. In many cultures this is worse than having an AB. Totally unacceptable. Everyone talks about they psych implications of an AB. There isn't a choice that doesn't cause psych issues. Adoption causes equally traumatic results as does keeping.
[no one can tell this sends me somewhere north of the stratosphere can they?]
I find this hypocritical in the extreme.
Seems to me the probirthers and the prochoicers just 'ignore the baby who is defenseless' at different times. I hate the thought of abortion. In a perfect world it wouldn't be necessary. However-- I find is reprehensible that people think it is OK to promote the birth and then leave the 'defenseless baby' at the mercy of the world that doesn't provide food, shelter, healthcare, protection or the resources for the baby to succeed in life. Add that to the active movement to remove access to GYN care and birth control and it makes me ill to think anyone claims they are advocating for the baby. NO. YOU. ARE. NOT. You are just fooling yourself. Until the world has changed you are forcing these mothers and babies into an untenable situation. Who is doing more harm? The woman who may make a choice believing the baby would not be provided for or the person who takes the choice away from the woman and then does not provide the things the woman already knows she can't provide. All the while the culture passes judgement saying it is the woman's fault like no peni5 is involved. Because she got pregnant she should suffer the consequences. The baby suffers but no one want to visit that.
Actively advocating for the baby would be working to help provide good healthcare for women including birth control (this has been proven to statistically improve not only the quality of life for the mother but significantly improves multiple outcomes for the baby.) Actively advocating for the baby would be working to improve access to healthy food for the mother and the family. Provide for education. Provide for safe shelter. Provide treatment for mothers who have mental illness or substance use issues. It is possible you do all those things on a small scale but society at large does not.
The 'defenseless baby' is more likely to be provided for by the pro-choicers with their views on a social net than the group that wants to restrict access to BC, Healthcare, abortion, cut funding to schools, WIC and other programs. No high ground here at all.
I have cared for people who have had to make very hard choices. Some chose a termination and others to keep the child. I have tried not to pass judgement- even the best birth control fails. I figure God will sort it out with them. I can say that keeping the baby is not always a successful venture even with multiple sources trying to advocate for the Mum. People think that because they take a choice away the mother will just get on with mothering. Not all Mums bond. The decision can destroy a relationship. Statistically it increases the chance of domestic violence. It can cause the family to who was scraping by to fall into abject poverty no matter how much they try to cut corners.
The next argument is 'Well, they should give the baby up'. In many cultures this is worse than having an AB. Totally unacceptable. Everyone talks about they psych implications of an AB. There isn't a choice that doesn't cause psych issues. Adoption causes equally traumatic results as does keeping.
[no one can tell this sends me somewhere north of the stratosphere can they?]
Last edited:
"Make sure?" Tell that to my friend the oncologist and his wife the pediatrician, who got knocked up while in med school together. They were thinking about marriage anyway, but certainly didn't plan on a baby at that time. She always says, "It's just so embarrassing - we're both doctors. It's not like we didn't know how this stuff WORKS!" If it can happen to them, it can happen to anyone.
Edit to add: that recently became my second favorite accidental pregnancy story. The first is now my MBA classmate, married with three kids. On his way to his vasectomy appointment, he got into a motorcycle accident and broke his leg pretty badly. So there he was, laid up at home for 6 weeks with nothing to do....and now he has four kids.
Last edited:
Re: Religion Thread: ...and suddenly, everyone's a theology scholar
You may have already made it clear, joe, but is your position on this based on your church's position on when a fetus becomes or has a "soul?" I mean, you use the word "baby." Assuming you believe an egg becomes a baby upon fertilization, is that belief guided by the Catholic Church?
I ask because Blackmun's analysis in Roe was based on his threshold conclusion that a woman has a fundamental right to privacy, which brought the 14th Amendment balancing process into play. He took a fairly scientific approach in using viability of the fetus as a guide in that balancing process. Unless am missing something, you are using "babyhood" as a trump card to create a status upon fertilization that completely removes the balancing process from the equation. If that is so, what is the specific source in scriptures or teachings of the church?
You may have already made it clear, joe, but is your position on this based on your church's position on when a fetus becomes or has a "soul?" I mean, you use the word "baby." Assuming you believe an egg becomes a baby upon fertilization, is that belief guided by the Catholic Church?
I ask because Blackmun's analysis in Roe was based on his threshold conclusion that a woman has a fundamental right to privacy, which brought the 14th Amendment balancing process into play. He took a fairly scientific approach in using viability of the fetus as a guide in that balancing process. Unless am missing something, you are using "babyhood" as a trump card to create a status upon fertilization that completely removes the balancing process from the equation. If that is so, what is the specific source in scriptures or teachings of the church?
FredsDeadFriend
New member
Re: Religion Thread: ...and suddenly, everyone's a theology scholar
OMgosh, not a single one of you is going to be judged worthy of salvation, and I'd like to assume you all know this already, but I suspect that FEW of you do!!!
This is just crazy, you debate the minutia, while ALL breaking the major rules, and not just once or twice in weakness, but DAILY, and often on purpose!!!
And you all deserve ****ation, too. Don't even try to argue that you don't. Scripture is CLEAR, those who did MIRACLES in his name were denied. How many of you losers can even come close to being able to claim HALF as much as those???
Wow, you people are SO lost and/or deluded, all of this just goes RIGHT OVER YOUR HEAD, eh? Just like Proverbs said it would. It's sad
Oh, but it's ok, you can just deem me a "fanatic", despite the fact I'm not even a Christian(oh wait, THAT is how you will discredit anything I say), or you can just ignore me like the average lazy ignorant human will, hey, you will be part of the majority, feel empowered about that!!
The Scripture might say, he that walks down the path less taken, that walks down the narrow way, instead of taking the wide path? But wait, what does the Scripture know, it was written by nutbags on mushrooms, right???
OMgosh, not a single one of you is going to be judged worthy of salvation, and I'd like to assume you all know this already, but I suspect that FEW of you do!!!
This is just crazy, you debate the minutia, while ALL breaking the major rules, and not just once or twice in weakness, but DAILY, and often on purpose!!!
And you all deserve ****ation, too. Don't even try to argue that you don't. Scripture is CLEAR, those who did MIRACLES in his name were denied. How many of you losers can even come close to being able to claim HALF as much as those???
Wow, you people are SO lost and/or deluded, all of this just goes RIGHT OVER YOUR HEAD, eh? Just like Proverbs said it would. It's sad
Oh, but it's ok, you can just deem me a "fanatic", despite the fact I'm not even a Christian(oh wait, THAT is how you will discredit anything I say), or you can just ignore me like the average lazy ignorant human will, hey, you will be part of the majority, feel empowered about that!!
The Scripture might say, he that walks down the path less taken, that walks down the narrow way, instead of taking the wide path? But wait, what does the Scripture know, it was written by nutbags on mushrooms, right???
Last edited:
unofan
Well-known member
Since there's no one out there actually judging us, I'm ok with this.
leswp1
Well-known member
Re: Religion Thread: ...and suddenly, everyone's a theology scholar
A look into the history of abortion is fascinating. The Church, did not define life 'from conception' but Quickening (feeling movement). That was the definition until fairly recently. A quick google finds that there was much commentary in the Church over the centuries that was more focused on the sin of sex rather than the result. For some reason the focus has shifted from sex being a heinous sin to suffer if you get a result you haven't planned on.
Main point here- if you are a Christian, ascribing to the teachings of Christ, then you should be helping women in a way that is most likely to result in not needing to debate this. Colorado funded free birth control and had a 40% reduction in AB. The places that are the most vociferous against AB also are the ones blocking access or sig decreasing access to BC/AB. Ironically they also have horrifyingly bad numbers for prenatal care and infant mortality. SOme of the numbers are worse than 3rd world countries.
A look into the history of abortion is fascinating. The Church, did not define life 'from conception' but Quickening (feeling movement). That was the definition until fairly recently. A quick google finds that there was much commentary in the Church over the centuries that was more focused on the sin of sex rather than the result. For some reason the focus has shifted from sex being a heinous sin to suffer if you get a result you haven't planned on.
Main point here- if you are a Christian, ascribing to the teachings of Christ, then you should be helping women in a way that is most likely to result in not needing to debate this. Colorado funded free birth control and had a 40% reduction in AB. The places that are the most vociferous against AB also are the ones blocking access or sig decreasing access to BC/AB. Ironically they also have horrifyingly bad numbers for prenatal care and infant mortality. SOme of the numbers are worse than 3rd world countries.
- Status